Relations between entities

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description must cover behavioral traits. It explains the key trait that relations use global entity_ids and the two_way option. However, it does not disclose side effects of delete/update, authentication requirements, or pagination behavior. For a CRUD tool with 7 parameters, more behavioral context would be beneficial.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is concise with four short sentences, each adding necessary information. There is no redundancy or filler. It efficiently conveys the tool's purpose, key concepts, and an optional feature.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's complexity (7 parameters, nested data object, no output schema, no annotations), the description provides essential information but leaves gaps. It does not explain the structure of data beyond target_id and two_way, pagination with page, or error scenarios. More complete context would help an agent invoke the tool correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is only 14%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning for entity_id (global entity_id), and explains that data contains target_id and two_way. This significantly clarifies the data object. However, confirm and page parameters remain unexplained.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the CRUD operations on 'relations between entities', specifying the resource and actions. It distinguishes from sibling tools that deal with entities themselves, and adds detail about the use of global entity_id.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description explains that relations are based on the source's global entity_id and that target_id in data is the destination's global entity_id. It also mentions the two_way option for reciprocal relations. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, though no direct alternative exists among siblings.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.